[text deleted by forum team]

QuackQuack_2

GraceCourt wrote: »

I thought that this site was supposed to assist the folks that get ripped-off, not the baddies!

Here Here!

What a poor show! I thought Martin Lewis was supposed to be the 'peoples champion'?

Yes, I understand that MSE - as a publisher of kinds - needs to tread a little bit carefully, but if the company concerned feels that aggrieved by being publicly named then THEIR redress is to take the poster to Court - rather than threaten staff at a consumer forum.

I suggest the original poster put their full details on pastebin (http://pastebin.com/) and links to it. If MSE remove that - given it's not published on their site - then clearly there may be something funny going on!

Oliver14

GraceCourt wrote: »

I I thought that this site was supposed to assist the folks that get ripped-off, not the baddies!

it si but if they get prosecduted themselves and the site is taken down because of that it wont help anyone.

This country has laws and if MSE are under the possibility of being prosecuted because of them they will obviously do the sensible thing and protect themselves.

What people post here is there opinions and viewpoint of problems. there is always another side and if the people /company you are attacking disagree they have rights also.

trumpton

You can also post on other warning sites like blagger.com and can you trust them.com

It is frustrating when MSE censor threads but they cannot be expected to take on a legal fight over libel everytime someone posts a complaint. I agree it does seem like the company have bullied MSE into removing the text, but the thread is still here and you can quickly work out which company it is.

GraceCourt

Oliver14 wrote: »

it si but if they get prosecduted themselves and the site is taken down because of that it wont help anyone.

This country has laws and if MSE are under the possibility of being prosecuted because of them they will obviously do the sensible thing and protect themselves.

What people post here is there opinions and viewpoint of problems. there is always another side and if the people /company you are attacking disagree they have rights also.

Of course they have rights, but prosecuted for what? "Prosecution" is for criminal offences, e.g. their failure to comply with the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 because they are trading anonymously, and you can't sue anyone in this country for saying something that is true - if MSE didn't keep censoring the thread, you could go to the site and verify that for yourself!

MSE has confirmed that the only reason they are removing the names is because of their policy not to publish personal details - they are completely silent as to why they keep removing the trading style being used by the offenders and the web site URL.

QuackQuack_2

I can't work out who this is - any clues?

GraceCourt

Just picked this up today... at least it clarifies that MSE, when it comes to it, will never really be "consumer champions"... just a source of good advice about bargains and finding good value for money...

MSE_Investigator wrote:

Dear GraceCourt

Thank you for your message, the contents of which are noted. We have no further comments to make in relation to this matter. This is a privately run website and we have alerted you to our terms and conditions, which do not permit the publication of personal details.

Yours sincerely,

MSE Investigator

GraceCourt wrote:

MSE_Investigator wrote:

We understand that you have some concerns about White Lighthouse Furniture and their trading style.

The concern is simply that they are committing criminal offences by trading anonymously - the legislation is as quoted on the thread.

MSE_Investigator wrote:

We retained your content as it we felt it may offer useful information to other consumers.

As you have obviously read the posts, I'm concerned that you don't understand that the "useful information" is the identities of the two individuals who are trading anonymously!

MSE_Investigator wrote:

Our policy does not permit the posting of personal details and as such we have removed the names of the two individuals trading as White Lighthouse Furniture. The details of Leah Matthews are readily available by carrying out a whois search. Her address on the whois database matches that on the website and it is reasonable to believe that she is trading as White Lighthouse Furniture.

I don't share that view at all... just because someone registers a domain doesn't make them legally liable for transactions via the Web site, he or (in this case) she could simply be an employee or Web site hoster. The whole point of the legislation is to remove such uncertainty!

You have seen my comments, and I still have grave concerns that MSE is happy to maintain the anonymity of two people who are deliberately failing to comply with consumer protection legislation (they are aware of that failure, from the post and from contact from us) but choose not to, in the full knowledge that (as is also reported on the thread) Belfast Trading Standards say they "do not have the resources" to enforce the law in this respect!

MSE_Investigator wrote:

I trust this explanation is satisfactory.

Not at all, I'm afraid. I've copied the thread and your PM and, given the very obvious public interest in this - i.e. that both Belfast Trading Standards and MSE see no issues with assisting offenders to maintain their anonymity in trading illegally on a Web site, so that people in the same situation as us are unable to exercise their rights via a Part 27 CPR 1998 (or at least the NI equivalent) civil claim - because they don't know whom to issue the summons against.

It will be interesting to see how vox populis responds to the position that MSE has adopted on this - I wish you luck convincing the general public that what you are doing is correct!

I doubt that we could get them on BBC "Rogue Traders", but if we could, wouldn't it be awkward and embarrassing for MSE if the item revealed what you are doing to preserve their anonymity? Is there any other comment that you wish to add, on behalf of MSE, in response (for publication)?

Kind regards,

MSE Investigator

[/QUOTE]

oldone_2

I can't help feeling that had the O.P posted a glowing report of the company concerned, and included the 'personal details' that are being removed, these would have been allowed to stand.

It is ironic that Martin Lewis claims to be a jounalist, and that throughout the history of British Press it has been investigative jounalism that have uncovered huge scandals that establishments have tried to cover up by threat of legal action.